Does the current public procurement system allow for the efficient implementation of strategic investments?

A year of proceedings. The same bid selected twice. Two appeals. And back to square one.

• selection of the Hill International bid;
• appeals;
• annulment of the Contracting Authority’s decision on the selection;
• re-examination and evaluation of tenders;
• the re-selection of the same contractor;
• further cancellations;
• The National Appeal Chamber and the exclusion of Hill International from the proceedings.

Plotting this on a timeline shows that more than a year has passed since the proceedings were initiated and 3.5 months since the Contracting Authority’s first decision. The current situation is as follows:

• the tender, which had twice been selected as the most favourable by the Contracting Authority (Hill International), was deemed by the National Appeal Chamber to be subject to rejection;
• The bid, which had been rejected twice by the contracting authority (Dar Al-Handasah), has been ‘reinstated’ by the National Appeal Chamber (KIO) and now stands a chance of winning.

In theory, all bidders still have a chance of winning — following the National Appeal Chamber’s (KIO) ruling, the contracting authority will reassess the tenders, and contractors dissatisfied with the KIO’s decision may lodge appeals with the court. So far, there are no consortia comprising companies with 100 per cent Polish capital amongst the frontrunners competing for this contract. Yet it was these consortia that offered prices closest to the contracting authority’s budget — albeit the highest ones. Interestingly, in this tender procedure, a higher price went hand in hand with higher quality. The consortium with the highest price was also rated highest on the quality criteria. Despite this, the international corporations that offered the lowest prices stand the best chance of winning the contract.